Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3c20092a2f32266aa40e8b7ed03fc460b243b063@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
	<v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
	<v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
	<v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
	<v88fh6$i7kl$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="797754"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:20:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
>>>>>> where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
>>>>>> instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
>>>>>> point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
>>>>>> countinuation.
>>>>
>>>>> In other words you believe that instead of recognizing a non-halting
>>>>> behavior pattern, then aborting the simulation and rejecting the
>>>>> input as non-halting the termination analyzer should just get stuck
>>>>> in recursive simulation?
>>>>
>>>> You're doing it again.  "In other words" is here a lie; you've just
>>>> replaced Mikko's words with something very different.
>>>>
>>> He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating input is
>>> incorrect unless it is simulated forever.
That is right.

>> I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it is
>> incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics. But it is incorrect to say
>> "off topic" on the basis of not following x86 semantics when your "on
>> topic" deviates from the x86 semantics as much as what I ask about in
>> my "off topic" question.
>> 
> It does not freaking deviate from the semantics for DDD to be correctly
> emulated by HHH
>      until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
>      stop running unless aborted...
"Until". By which point it does deviate, by not continuing a halting
simulation and not returning that it halts.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.